Sorry, Bricasti M7. Sound equip dealers are telling me that folks are moving more and more to software verbs. But anything I've ever heard online using this hardware just sounds to my ears lightyears ahead of the best vat convolution reverbs.

more and more people are using software because its affordable and good enough. It fits with the rest of the majority workflow. Software is fun and gets you going. Some people are amazing with just software. Electronic music , clinical processing and editing = software.

Software is all part of the affordable recording industry. That being said, there is a lot of very affordable software that is perfect for the task and there is a lot of hardware that is a complete waste of money if its in the wrong hands.
I would say that 90% of my workflow is software. The other 10% is an array (matrix) of very sophisticated and carefully selected hardware products. I record, mix and master in particular stream that goes from one DAW to the next. DAW 1 > analog> DAW 2.

Anyone with a workflow like this would never trade an M7 in for just software. I use software to DA out to hardware and back again. I use a few M7's in an analog workflow and they are indispensable parts designed to simulate organic space OTB.

There is mass confusion and usually important parts missing between workflow and end-users opinions. Mass don't tell share age, don't share workflow or processes enough when posts and opinions are shared in all social media.
I try and make it a point to expand on my workflow before I say something is right for the next guy.

We've been watching opinions corrupt the pro audio industry for 16 years here, since the web had uncensored open discussions. The uniformed are constantly raving or slamming some product.
People are constantly adding some expensive tool (G.A.S.) to their DAW workflow, plugging it into a compromised chain and sharing their (good or bad) opinion on it. Eventually, because there is no money in this business to keep investing in high end, majority will complain and share to the world that HD hardware did nothing for them, and that software can emulate most everything.

Generally speaking, If we don't plan on expanding to HD level through and through, it is my opinion hybrid processing is a waste of money. This stuff isn't noticeable enough in a low to mid level workflow half built to standards. In fact, most people are actually worse off summing OTB because they are going about it all goofy.

First off, don't know where that icon on the left that denotes "me" came from!

Anyhow, it's simple. I've been playing with and at keyboard (piano) synth stuff since the days of Atari ST. I just love it. Never made any money out of it. Never will.

Probably the ONLY aspect of the process from performance to midi recording to making the end product (audio file) that ever really BOTHERED me was the quality of the REVERB. It would be preferable NOT to use it, I suppose, but I have yet to come across a piano sample that did NOT require SOME kind of reverb.

Even the best software reverb always left me cold. When I do something I really like, I'll actually rent hardware verb to create a "hall" dimension to the sound, rather than use convolution. I used to rent LEX stuff. But I recently purchased the first piano vst that I really liked, and the company that makes the vst used a Bricasti m7 to add just a hint of verb.

I have never heard a more convincing hall verb in my life. So I said to myself: "I have to have that unit."

I may just break down an purchase one (about $3700 Can plus tax). Insane, I guess. But so was laying out 4500?? for these Neumann KH310 monitors, until I started using them. Worth every penny.

If someone's certain you can get what I heard for significantly less, I'm open. But somehow, I don't think so. At least, I haven't heard anything as good in my humble opinion.

Of all the things I have here, its the Bricasti's that makes the big difference. You don't even need much of one ( level of effect that is). I love them so much that I would love to have 8 of them . One for each stem. But of course, one is plenty enough.

If things start to pick up for me, one of those is on my shopping list of must haves. Though the QWANTEC, I had 23 years ago was a rather fascinating sounding, high-end reverb box. It did some real nice ambient spaces. Certainly didn't have the awesome power the M-7 has. That's the hot ticket today.

Yup, the Bricasti M7 makes ITB come alive and in general, help a bad room not sound as bad and help a "good" room sound much better . Its a good piece of the chain. A wonderful tool for simulating space in a mix.

the only 2 software reverbs that made me go wow was the stock adobe audition 2.0 convolution verb, and the new lexicon verbs that just came out. i hate to admit it, i almost like the lexicon, but i need more time to play w it to make a true judgement.

that said, they don't touch the bricasti to my ears. its a large step up. as a fan of not making computers do anything they dont have too, theres something in that dedicated box th just = fabulous. chris used it on a snippiit of one of tracks, and I ive heard some online demos, all impresive. it is the only modern outboard reverb i would buy (w the the spx-90, and h3000 being on the affordaable classic peices list) while I'm sure it's not quite the same there is a company that does make an emulation of the bricasti m7, I'd hafta look it up or ask my buddy which one it is, I know he said it sounded good, but I doubt it is as sophisticated, and rich sounding as the real thing. But if money is an issue, it might do the job. Just an option, but I'd get the real deal if I could. Dave Pensado (highly paid mixer) loves his, and while it doesn't seem to get talked about much, I have never heard anyone who's heard it say anything but "I love this thing". Took 30 sec for me to be convicted it's the best digital reverb out there.

here ya go. And as a reminder, I don't claim to be a Mastering Engineer nor do I even want to be. This is a quick example of a Bricasti using the Amsterdam Hall preset with a touch of the STC-8 on the master bus, captured on a second DAW and uploaded to here.

I couldn't do it all Miklos, as I have my entire studio dedicated to a play right now but I did one track for you. Hope you like it.

Yeah... these things are smooth. It makes a Lexicon reverb sound like an effect. I heard it at the AES this past October. No wonder they make a controller to control more than one. OMG! Makes my old Lexicon, MRC, look like a joke. All I can do now is dream.

Well, being of a rationalist, scientific, almost ... even anti-theist bent ... I'd be asking: How is it that a software verb can't DO this???? It seems to me almost anti-diluvian (... against modern or modernized technology...) to acknowledge that the Bricasti verb is just ... well... a whole lot more convincing than the latest "advanced" software algorithms. Are there digital v.s. analog issues at play?

Neil Young has complained that our ears are getting dumbed-down by years of mass-marketed inferior sound. And there's something to his remonstrations. I might fork-out for something in reverb that is patently (I think) vastly superior to the software alternatives. But on the "Internet", who will notice? Who really cares? What are the "ears" of the average listener really interested in?

Neil Young has complained that our ears are getting dumbed-down by years of mass-marketed inferior sound.

Click to expand...

i have a feeling he wasn't referring to the M7 specifically.

not everything over the "internet" is degraded quality, netflix is hugley popular and streams in Dolby 5.1. i think if a reverb the level of the bricasti was available as an affordable pluggin, they would have hard selling the rack units. and eventually the quality level overall will increase w everything else, so theres no reason that makes sense to me to not record w the best quality possibly. whether this means some trashy pre amp that distorts wildly, or the best digital reverb i ever heard.

theres nothing at all against modernized technology in liking the M7, in fact, just the opposite, enthusiaim that something artificial, can sound as realistic, or good, as it does.

To add, there is more to the Bricasti than just the reverb "effect". There are undeniable difference mixing OTB. The Bricasti, with other things in a chain opens a mix in a way that I cannot duplicate ITB. I also use it in the simple analog domain, apposed to aes or like many, round trip. My preferred method is inserted before and after a console which is always on its way to the capture system uncoupled from DAW 1.

Many people have asked Casey (Bricasti ) why don't they build it in a plug-in and he started, it would take 7 computers to do what one does proficiently in a DAW. CPU's have been improved since that statement but as our CP's improve, so will dedicated processing. If I was using 3 instances of Bricasti's I know my 960 i7 would suffer serious problems.

There will always be people that choose the special stuff. Not only for their lust, but for a client base that prefers to be above the noise too.
There will always be dedicated hardware that needs an entire computer for just one effect, why wouldn't it continue? and so it goes... good, better, best and the constant race to improve something with everything ya got. .

do we need better, I don't know. I'm pretty satisfied already. But, its no longer about real. Real isn't enough for humans and commercial success. We are in pursuit of shock and virtual amazement. Thats where its going and why I do it too I suppose.

audiokid, I'm curious about your workflow with your Bricastis. I know you're running a hybrid system., but these things are pricey and only do two channels. You've got more than one, but even then, are you running them on multiple stems before you capture them in your second DAW, and then on the stereo mixdown too afterwards (and capturing in a separate DAW again?) or just on the stereo output from the first DAW? Or something else? Know what I mean?